Posts made by ehaflett

I've had this problem too. The scene that you move to is not saved with the style in which you have your watermark. If you want to keep the watermark in every scene you need to go to each and save the scene with the correct style. When you update your scene it will ask you about all the things you want included in the scene.

Pretty nice, good detail and warm color scheme. I did notice that in the 3rd one the woman on the right looks like she's striding headlong into the pool.

I don't care what kind of dog Obama gets as long as he names it George.

@rickw said:

@unknownuser said:

I hope he will be a bridge builder and that the awful partisan rhetoric can be put behind us.

Sure, but the bridge probably only has a one-way lane going to the left. I will be thoroughly shocked if the "most liberal senator" does anything meaningful to reach out to conservatives.

He's going to have trouble finding a way to pay for building that bridge too, what with all the scalpels and pork he's been talking about.

I do agree Jackson. 'Legal graffitti', eh? What exactly is that?

I am, because when it's over we can resume the WORLD SERIES! Both make me want to drink but for very different reasons.

Way cool CadFather. Thanks.

@bellwells said:

@ehaflett said:

...I'm voting the issues and voting my conscience and that feels good to me. It's nice because I don't have to watch the news or tap into the 24-hour news/spin cycle because they never talk about 3rd parties, and I don't have to watch the debates. It's pretty nice, I recommend it.

Thanks Eric, I needed this to further validate my voting for Bob Barr. I had suggested I might change my vote to McCain if I got mad enough at the liberal media. Thanks for bringing me back from the edge...

GREAT, glad I could help. Anyone else? Anyone?

To use a phrase that Ron used quite appropriately I'm quite frankly tired or 'Parsing the Bulls@#t'. Both sides are spewing it at a rate that is impossible to keep up with and make sense of. I keep reading these political threads (I still don't know why) because they make me feel even more justified in voting for Ralph Nader. He and his running mate Matt Gonzalez are NO BULLS@#T, no parsing required. They both have excellent records of public service and just plain honesty. You just don't hear the same type of stuff being kicked around about them as you do for the 2-headed monster currently fighting itself. They are wise and intelligent advocates of the people. I used to get fired up and angry and frustrated reading this stuff, not anymore. I'm voting the issues and voting my conscience and that feels good to me. It's nice because I don't have to watch the news or tap into the 24-hour news/spin cycle because they never talk about 3rd parties, and I don't have to watch the debates. It's pretty nice, I recommend it.

@bellwells said:

@daniel said:

I agree it's a shame there were only two, but last I counted there were about eight people running for the office of the President (most of whom I never even heard of), and including them all would have been too much. The networks do not determine who is included in the debates, but rather the Commission on Presidential Debates. Amongst their criteria, a candidate must have support from 15% of the national electorate, as indicated by five national polling organizations, such as Ross Perot had in '92.

Appreciate the information. I think the percentage should be reduced to 5-10%; 15% is quite a lot and a tough barrier to overcome.

How is any candidate supposed to get that kind of support without
A: being seen on the national stage via the mainstream media. (a bit of a catch22 there.)
B: being included in the polls conducted by the national polling organizations (no 3rd party candidates are listed on those polls)

How about looking at how many ballots they're on? Nader is on 45 of the 50 state ballots despite nearly impossible state laws that make that very difficult.

@unknownuser said:

Eric & Pete,
(Am I ‘crazy’…?!)

If you are atheists, you cannot explain entire “spirit” and part of the “soul”
but you are ‘proud’ about your freedom...?!!

Paradoxically…:
Cornel

Sorry, I don't see a paradox. What freedom am I proud of? What is the opposite of free will?

Susan, great points. I disagree with you that we disagree, I think we agree and here's why. I think the question the way it has been discussed here is whether there is a force other than physical or historical (personal history, i.e. upbringing) that influences our everyday comings and goings. I fully agree with you that chemistry plays a big role in predisposing us for most behaviors, being wired a certain way. The idea, however, that our path thru life is somehow predetermined at birth by a higher power or somehow influenced by 'him', is what I just don't see. Perhaps I was remiss in mentioning chemistry in my original post but I lump that in with the biological factors of learning.

@unknownuser said:

P.S.:
"The natural person () does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned*." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
(* - like an atheist...)

Thanks Cornel, I coundn't have said it better myself. Funny thing about this quote is that religious people read it and feel sorry for atheists and atheists don't read it. Does 'Natural' maan 'atheist'? Does this mean spiritual/religious people are un-natural?

Great thread! I'm a bit late to it so forgive me. chongo70 I'm really digging your comments, great approach.

I'd like to add that from my atheist perspective the idea of free will is a purely religious construct, meaning that it can only be discussed within the framework of some religion. Without that it's quite absurd because it requires me to imagine someone in my head other than me. My actions are determined by the way my thoughts developed as I aged and how they were formed by my parents, peers, and environment. There is no entity (God) upon which to pin that developmental influence. That being said, is it fair to say that atheists have free will and religious people do not on the basis that their actions are either preprogrammed by or at least influenced by the word (will) of their God?

the Heart of Oak Pub in Buckingham PA. Used to be called the Wookie Hole way back.

http://www.baciristorante.com/html/heart_of_oak_pub.htm

Ron, I agree with you about those guys in Europe and their bars. This one is the closest I've found to that.

one for all you dancing with the stars fans...

Every presidential election is a slagging match between the 2 parties, I'm not sure this one is any different. Perhaps it seems that way to us since we're both probably only recently engaged with politics.

So how do we make our election not such a joke? To answer your question about a real debate of the issues would require something that neither party is willing to do and that's come clean and not please everyone on everything (someone said that here somewhere). The debates aren't debates. <angry 3rd party rant>If 3rd party candidates with different and creative ideas were allowed to debate the debates would be just that. The way they are now they're allowed to become a slagging match and a joke. </angry 3rd party rant> The candidates are barely challenged and often need to look really hard to find ways to define differences between their views. In other words I would LOVE to see a 'straightforward debate about issues' by the candidates, ALL of the candidates. Any suggestions on how we do this?

Who was it that said 'Democracy is the worst type of government, except for all the others'?

If you were asking about debating politics here on this forum then I see nothing wrong with that either.

I'm afraid this will have to continue on monday, I've got cold beer and friends waiting for me and hopefully you do too.